Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Continuing with the Problems of Full Preterism

As we continue to probe the matter of Full Preterism we have to keep in mind that it is a fairly new interpretation schematic. Indeed, some would contend that we only find Consistent Preterism showing up in 1970 or so. However, even if you date it back to J. Stuart Russell one is at that point only going back as far as the mid 1800s. (Though, J. Stuart Russell was not a Full Preterist in the way that is typically understood today as Russell was not comfortable with the idea that Revelation 20:10-14 was a past occurrence.)

Because Full Preterism is so new on the scene (like its polar opposite Dispensationalism) we should be extremely cautious about jumping into the Hymenaeus pool. Remember, with the embrace of Full Preterism is the embrace that everyone for almost 2000 years of Church history were wrong about eschatology. If we are to conclude that all the saints for almost 2000 years were wrong we better be very careful about the evidence we are going to accept in order to make that leap.

Keep in mind before you make that leap that Preterism, like all systems that can be characterized as being taken up by ideologues, is a system that is based on deductive reasoning that then requires all the particulars to be forced into the deductive system despite how the particulars may testify against the deductive system. Preterism, will not allow any contrary evidence from particular texts of Scripture because Preterism has as straight-jacket template that requires all to fit the system. Preterism, is a procrustean bed that will take texts and force them to fit their system. To the Preterist hammer all the eschatolgical texts are nails.

What the above paragraph means then is that having a conversation with a Preterist on this subject can be excruciatingly difficult because for them this is not just about eschatology. Indeed, for them Preterism is their whole weltanschauung. For a Partial-Preterist to argue on this point with a full Preterist is no different than a Calvinist arguing with an Arminian. The worldviews are so vastly different that there really shouldn’t be much expectation of success since each discussant have a different world and life view. This difference in worldviews is also seen in chaps like Don Preston and Max King as the ripple effect of their Full Preterism has rearranged all kinds of other Christian doctrinal systems.

Now let’s talk about the coming of Jesus for just a bit. First, we should observe how interesting it is to compare Dispensationalism and Full Preterism here. On one hand Dispensationalism is the eschatology that makes much of Christianity about the Israel of the future, while on the other hand full Preterism is the eschatology which makes much of Christianity about the Israel of the past. Both Full Preterism and Dispensationalism are preoccupied with Israel and the Jews. For Dispies the eschaton is about the Jews of the future. For Full Preterist the eschatological texts are about the Jews of the past.

I prefer the Christianity that says the Jews are eschatologically irrelevant since God divorced them as His people in AD 70. (And this doesn’t even take into consideration the whole Khazar issue.)

Let’s round off this post look a wee bit at the “coming” of Jesus. We would note that given the range of meaning of the Greek word “παρουσία” all because the Lord Christ or Scripture speaks of  Christ’s coming several places we need not conclude that every mention of  παρουσία  (coming) is in reference to what is commonly referred to today as His one and only “second coming.” It is true that many of the references of “coming” could well point to yet to be realized future second coming judgment. It is equally true that many references of Christ’s “coming” in the NT could also point to Christ’s AD 70 coming.

If it can be demonstrated from Scripture that just one “coming” of Jesus was NOT related to AD 70 or to Jesus “second coming” return then the insistence that the coming of Jesus has to be either what happened in AD 70 (Full Preterism) or what happens at the end of time (Christ’s bodily return) is kaput.

And we have just one of many “coming” (έρχομαι/παρουσία) examples found in Daniel 7 where the text speaks of the coming of Jesus that is neither a coming that is to end the world nor a coming that relates to AD 70;

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Here the coming of Jesus is neither AD 70 nor the final return at the end of time. Here the coming of Jesus is to the Father. We could produce many more examples where coming  (έρχομαι/παρουσία) is used to express a range of meaning that cannot be limited either to Christ’s AD 70 coming or Christ’s bodily return at the end of the age.

The point here is that the Dispensationalist are wrong when they insist that  παρουσία every single time means yet some coming future event and the Hyper-Preterists are wrong when they insist that παρουσία every single time must refer to the AD 70 judgment coming. The same word, depending upon the context can be used for both the “Second coming” of Christ or for Christ’s coming in judgment in AD 70 or some other time.

Both groups make a basic exegetical error and so both Dispensationalism and Full Preterism should be eschewed.

More Difficulties for the Preterists

“If the Great Commission has been fulfilled, and the General Resurrection of Christians has been fulfilled, and the Judgment of the wicked and the righteous has been fulfilled; then what is left to propagate? Is Preterism really about telling everyone it’s all over and everyone missed it?

This question of what is ongoing or ‘What now?’ question has dogged many preterist teachers….[T]here is not much of an outline in the Bible for what Christians should be doing if they are not supposed to be replicating the practices of the pre-AD 70 Christians.

Roderick Edwards
About Preterism — p. 36f

Full Preterism if it is to be “consistent Preterism” must concede that Satan and the work of his minions has ceased. After all Scripture teaches;

Rev. 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Per Inconsistent Preterism, all is past so that this passage must mean that the Devil has already been cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. Preterism then, if consistent must teach that our ancient enemy, the devil is no longer an enemy since he no longer prowls like a hungry lion seeking whom he may devour. Preterism says this is past.

Further, Hyper-Preterism runs into the problem of Jesus promise to the Church to remain until the end of the age. If the end of the age has already come per Consistent Preterism than Jesus has fulfilled His promise and is now no longer with us.

Next we have to ask what happens in regards to the current practice of the Eucharist by Christians? After all, we are instructed by the Holy Spirit in I Cor. 11:26 to attend the table “until He comes.” If Christ has come, per Eschatological Past-ism then Christians are disobeying by attending the Lord’s Supper. After all, per the Full Preterist Christ has come and so attending the table now is akin to taking up and implementing again the OT Sacrificial system.

Next there is the Preterist denial of bodily resurrection of the saints and yet we find this being expressly taught in Mathew 27:52-53 where we read:

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

In light of his how can the Preterist dismiss bodily resurrection with a straight face and expect us to take them seriously? Even the resurrection of Lazarus, though he later died a second time, suggests that the Scripture sees bodily resurrection as a big deal that confirms the power and authority of Christ. What happens to that claim of God’s power and authority if bodily resurrection is, after all, not really true?

Look, even one of the Preterist gurus, J. Stuart Russell who was one of the most influential 19th century Preterists, balked at interpreting Rev. 20:10-15 (the judgment after the millennium) as having already been fulfilled. At this point Russell left behind the addlepated atmosphere of the current Preterism.

Having begun with Roderick Edwards we shall end with him;

“In brief, almost all theological expressions of Preterism were merely what is labeled now as “Partial-Preterism” BEFORE Max King (a [Church of Christ] preacher) started advocating his views in the 1970s… Full Preterism, as we presently know it has its roots within the anticreedal, anticonfessional, and antihistorical denomination (the Churches of Christ).”

Roderick Edwards
Origin of Full Preterism

Imagine how odd it is that Reformed people are now picking up this anti-Reformed eschatology.

Continuing to Critique Wolfe on Nationalism

“Here we come to Wolfe’s concept of the “nation,” which is left surprisingly ambiguous. We learn from Wolfe that the “nation” is not to be identified with the post-Westphalian nation-state,23 or with racial groups in the modern sense,24 but rather with “one’s own people-group” and “sharing . . . particularity with others.”25 Exactly what, though, demarcates one nation from another? The argument in this section unfolds at a dizzyingly high level of abstraction, with specific comparative examples in short supply. Wolfe acknowledges, to be sure, that “[t]he idea of nation is notoriously difficult to define”26—but more is required than the book provides. Surely, for instance, my college is not a “nation,” no matter how many of the phenomenological conditions for nationhood (similar customs, similar backgrounds of residents, common sense of place) it possesses.”

John Ehrett
Was Nietzsche Right?
American Reformer

1.) I have been saying this ever since I read Wolfe’s book and listened to his interviews so naturally I like it when people agree with me. Let’s be honest here, this is the only criticism of Wolfe’s book that is needed to demonstrate that it is not a serious work on Christian Nationalism. If you can’t or won’t define what a nation is then any musings on Nationalism of any stripe is just so much hooey. This is the first indicator that Wolfe’s book isn’t really a serious work on Nationalism.

2.) A second indicator that Wolfe himself isn’t really a serious Nationalism scholar is seen in a Tweet is pushed out some time ago.

“Isn’t it interesting that neo-Calvinists emphasized improving what is earthly but never mentioned the improvement of the body.”

Now, keep in mind that Wolfe takes pains in his book to promote his Natural Law Bona Fides at the expense of neo-Calvinism. Wolfe desires to ground his vision (such as it is) in Natural law theory and so neo-Calvinism has to go.

This is all well and good and understandable given Wolfe’s persuasion. However, the Tweet above is just not true and a scholar would not have shoved that Tweet out since a scholar would have known that one of the leading neo-Calvinists (Bavinck) of the 20th century wrote a long section in his “Reformed Ethics” on the necessity to improve the body.

Part B. Our Duties toward Ourselves

18. General Bodily Duties to Self
&36 General Duties (Self-Preservation)
&37 Duties toward Bodily LIfe
19. Basic Necessities of Bodily Life
&38 Food and Nourishment
&39 Clothing
20. Bodily Duties to Our Souls
&40 Our Duty to Life Itself
&41 Attending to Bodily Life in the Seventh through Ninth Commandments
&42 Duties toward the Soul

3.) Wolfe’s book on Christian Nationalism is more Rorschach test than it is a scholarly work on Christian Nationalism. I have said that repeatedly since I read the book and it is with pleasure that I notice a recent reviewer of Wolfe’s book has said the same thing.

“As a result, I anticipate that Wolfe’s book will prove to be a Rorschach test.”

John Ehrett
Article Critiquing Wolfe

I understand that there are those who desperately desire a path so as to return to a healthy Christian Nationalism. Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s book, with its Thomistic nature vs. grace Natural Law paradigm does not provide that path. What Wolfe has done for us in this publication is to make it clear that Thomistic thinking remains a non-starter when it comes to philosophy of any kind. It has also made it clear that presuppositionalists who are chomping at the bit for Christian Nationalism are, at best, only going to dine with the Thomistic Natural Law guys, with their version of Christian Nationalism with a very very long spoon.

Vos & McAtee on National Election

“God’s decree is not exclusively concerned with individuals but also comprises nations and establishes the bond between generations. The destiny of a nation is weighed by Him, as is the destiny of a person. There is not the slightest interest, indeed is completely impossible on Reformed grounds, to deny national election or whatever it may be called.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol 1. — pg. 111

1.) If Vos is correct — and he is — then how could any Reformed Pastor, Luminary, or laymen deny the desirability, irreproachability and necessity of Christian Nationalism?

2.) The denial of the desirability, irreproachability and necessity of Christian Nationalism as coming from the Reformed community is proof positive that the Reformed community has become Baptistified inasmuch there is seemingly no longer an ability to embrace the corporate side of the covenant. For the Reformed, like the Baptists, the emphasis falls so much on the atomistic individual that the corporate side of covenantal categories is completely ruled out of bounds. Like the Baptists, salvation has become completely an individual, subjective reality. The Reformed have lost the corporate and objective side of the covenant.

3.) This statement more clearly than could be asked prohibits the New World Order agenda of erasing the Nations and turning the world into a vast melting pot. If God elects nations then nations are God’s is one means whereby He elects persons from those nations. To advocate positions that would destroy nations is to resist God.

Note also that this National Election, Vos offers, establishes the bond between generations. Clearly if National Election establishes the bond between generations it is a ethnic bond as well as a generational bond. Generations in a nation belong to the same ethnos. God works in ethnic lines. The bond God establishes is ethnic as well as Spiritual. Any attempt to destroy the ethno-generational bond that God establishes in and among nations is a denial of Biblical Christianity.

Alienist theology which teaches a postmillennialism where all peoples bleed into one is a anti-Christ theology. New World Order humanism is anti-covenant theology.

Hoedemaker On the Myth of Neutrality — Advocate for State with the Bible

“After all, science is not an abstract concept. It does not have a life of its own. It varies in accordance with the Scriptural and worldview in which it is rooted. It becomes what it is through what its representatives may or may not believe. This is true of science considered as a whole, as well as in terms of separate parts. Men like Lombroso and Ferri arrive at different criminal law that Gratama or Groen.

But we hereby declare that the modern state, which by its basic principle must keep itself neutral, cannot establish or maintain schools of science, nor even act as its patron. Science cannot and should not be colorless. Neutrality here means unbelief. He who rejects the authority of the King is a rebel. Science that denies its guiding principle is unbelief.

This is not widely recognized in Christian circles. It is believed that the state as we know it cannot have theology taught; but it is forgotten to add that on the same ground and with the same right, no branch of science can be entrusted to it, and the less so, the less it shows the character of an auxiliary science. If the state with the Bible is rejected, then the University has been given its death warrant.

I am now considering the matter entirely in the abstract. But one arrives at the same result if one considers things from a practical point of view. The university is a fortress controlling the entire field of thought and action. It follows that no group in popular life will be able to leave it in the hands of those hostile to its principle. Here we have the key to the position.

P. J. Hoedemaker
The Politics of Antithesis — pg. 75-76

Hoedemaker makes the point here that Thomas Kuhn’s was lauded for when Kuhn’s wrote, “Structures of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn’s point there as Hoedemaker’s point here is that Science is not worldview free and does not exist in some neutral vacuum where it is unencumbered by apriorist convictions of the Scientists doing the “science.”

Of course the greater point here is that as long as either the University of the State operates apart from the compass of God’s Word in favor of a idealized but never realized “neutrality,” the consequence will be, as sure as night follows day, that the people of the nation will become pagan. If we cannot have God’s Word as our Lodestone in the University, and indeed in all our government education, than the result will be that our churches will soon become pagan as a result of our children being catechized by a different faith in the school system that is being covered with the fig leaf of neutrality. Having been catechized in the State religion in the school system, — all the time being convinced that they have not been since all their education was “neutral” — at least some of them will then return to the Church and via their “neutral education” reinterpret Christianity to comport with their “neutral education” that was never really neutral.
In my estimation this perhaps the chief problem of the Church in America. As long as the Education centers remain in the hands of the “neutral” statists, just so long Christianity will be a begging religion.

And R2K loves it so.

Just remember the words of Hoedemaker here. “He who rejects the authority of the King is a rebel.”